Published on Feb 21, 2015Served with a search warrant from Nevada Gaming at gunpoint, then lead out my front door in nothing but boxers & handcuffs, then they stole most of my electronics. I was not arrested or charged with any crimes.

If they take you away against your will that is called an arrest, even if he wasn't charged and they didn't call it an arrest. The Arstechnica article was published today.

Wow, relationship gone wrong? What could drive a women to do such a thing? Psycopath for sure, but even them usually don't do stuff like that during high school age unelss there's really fucked up family conditions (I know a guy who had to beat someone with a baseball bat til he almost died at 10 years of age because hes father forced him to). This women if guilty should be executed, she will just keep killing. No turning those people normal...I'd like to see the evidence, was there someone with her? Maybe a he owed drug money?

Read the article, it describes her detailing her responsibility for his death before it happened to friends along with several encouragements for him to follow thru with the act as well as her taking advantage of the situation for personal gain after the fact.

I'm just telling you what is actually going on, yes it is a shitty thing to do to a person, the people involved in such things are scum, the fact is though they haven't tried to physically harm them even if they may have tried coercing them into doing it, the problem is if she's prosecuted it will set another precedent where people can't take responsbility for their own actions and therefore somebody else or something else is to blame. I don't bullshit people, I'm not going to coddle you and tell you she's a monster and a horrible person and should be thrown into jail for what she did, she's certainly a horrible person, but unfortunately if we jail people for that we're all going to be put in at one point or another.

That's just the reality of the world we live in and why we have to limit ourselves from becoming a mob that randomly lynches people we don't like.

I agree with you to a degree. I don't think we need new or existing cyberbullying legislation, but I do however believe that existing well established laws on the books cover what she did as I previously stated, such as harassment, stalking, abuse of the disabled, and potentially manslaughter. I think the key in this particular case is that she demonstrated intent as well as motive, which are both primary tenets of law enforcement, making this not such a gray area case like most of the other cases I linked.

Did you even read the article fully, or my responses for that matter? The issue was not that she was attempting to overtly bully him via social media, her use of social media was simply evidence of her intent to drive the man to suicide while she pretended to be his friend and tried to elicit sympathy for herself. So IMO it is not appropriate to make a direct comparison to "cyberbullying", because this was not that situation. I do however agree that "cyberbullying" legislation, or laws against "trolling" are not able to be justly enforced, are moronic and shouldn't exist.

However, this is a unique and clear cut case of harassment with INTENT to cause harm to the man along with MOTIVE. In law intent and motive are very important factors in prosecution, and I believe the information gleaned from her social media activities and texts clearly show her intent and motive to cause harm to the boy via psychological manipulation and abuse in order to serve her own twisted purposes. There are plenty of laws on the books about harassment, stalking, and abuse of disabled (aka psychologically ill people) that could easily be invoked in this case without using "cyberbullying" legislation.

As far as the gender issue, I disagree. This is very clearly an issue of gender bias, at least in your personal interpretations if not on a national scale.You brought up Amanda Todd, and this is a perfect example how a similar situation, when it happens to a female is almost universally considered to be a travesty and predictably people cry out for the perpetrators to be brought to justice. Given Amanda Todd was a minor, so I am not sure a direct comparison is appropriate because of this, but it does demonstrate how when such events are perpetrated on a female the reaction is to immediately seek reprisals. Then in the same vein when an even more purposeful attempt to drive someone to suicide for personal gain (rather than just mindless bullying with no real specific intent for result, or evident motive) is perpetrated by a female against a male, people such as your self are immediately dismissive and place the blame squarely upon the victim without a second thought. When a female commits suicide because of harassment there is a national outreach and push to find the perpetrators far more often then when a male is in a similar situation.

Some examples of how these cases are handled differently according to gender:

As you can see almost none of the cases relating to male suicides result in criminal investigations let alone charges, while many if not most of the cases related to female suicides result in criminal investigations as well as criminal charges. I believe personal responsibility is important, and also that freedom of speech should be carefully protected, yet when there is clear intent with motive to convince some one to commit suicide there are plenty of laws that can be invoked and SHOULD be invoked in cases such as in the OP. Unfortunately even though the suicide rate for males is much higher, it is not often that investigations related to bullying are carried out when the victim is male. Why is no one asking why pushing a male suicide is some how less of a crime?

The facts have not changed, but your understanding of them has, yet you still cling to the same conclusions. Sounds like confirmation bias to me. Additionally I think you are far to easily dismissing his claims. Here is some additional information on his claims to grazing rights. IMO this is beynd Cliven Bundy's rights, it is also an issue of states rights.

"In 1993, to “protect” the tortoise (among other things), “the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts”—efforts entailing “the elimination of livestock grazing” in certain areas, the Post reports. The BLM “purchased” “grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land,” but Bundy family members refused to “willingly sell their grazing privileges,” the Post reports."

Not exactly as I predicted, but the net affect is the same. Bundy's cattle are happily munching on what little vegetation grows in that desert and I think it's fair to suspect that this is in thanks for a job well done on the part of the Bundy clan. I'd rate it as one of the most successful domestic psy-ops (which became legal due to the 2013 NDAA) because probably only 0.01% of the population even suspects it as possible.

Since this thread started I've personally moved much farther to the right on a lot of issues and in particular land use issues on account of me personally being extorted by my state's DEQ. I don't change my stance on the Bundy issue one iota and stand by everything I said on this thread. Why? Consistency. I am a strong believer in property rights and always have been even when I was much more left-leaning. The land Bundy's cattle are using belongs to the Federal govt. It is there right to do whatever the fuck they please with it more or less.

I think the Feds own to much land and that we as a society should move that in the other direction, but that's the way it is in the here and now. Bundy's activities were not achieving this goal at all and caused significant regressions on multiple fronts. Further, I strongly suspect that this was more by design than by accident.

They have a name for when people refuse to change their stance regardless of their change in understanding of the facts, confirmation bias.

If I am not mistaken, the "federal lands" Bundy's cattle are grazing upon were originally property of the Bundy family, given up to the federal government with the explicit condition that he, and his family, in perpetuity be allowed to graze the lands free of fees. Why is it that the rights of the federal government should be maintained, but it is ok to disregard the protections afforded to the Bundy family under that agreement?

As far as this being a psyop, I am in agreement with you on this part, however that does not mean Bundy himself is complicit. IMO this served as sort of a honeypot to lure in reactionaries and militiamen so they could be identified, as well as gauging the public response to such actions, and perhaps even a way to influence people into supporting such actions from the federal government. This could have all easily been set up around him without any complicity on his part as a captive participant.

I am not aware that "cops", being agencies of the municipality, or the county, the county being a division of the state, have statutory authority to enforce federal laws at all. In some cases federal law is essentially written into state law, but in many cases it is not.

Also factually in error seems to be the assertion that citizens cannot buy That's just the $200 BATF fee and stamp, right?

You are right to a degree. In general police would not be enforcing federal laws, but they certainly could make the arrest and send it to court in a federal jurisdiction. In addition to reporting the person to appropriate federal agencies. It seems what they are seeking to do is to remove that potentiality within the state by making such actions criminal in their own right by invoking the supremacy of State law over Federal law. As far as the part about no "newly manufactured machine guns", I believe this is relatively new legislation, similar to the now elapsed "assault rifle" ban which prohibited the manufacture or import of new "assault rifles".

She's clearly a sociopath but that guy had control over himself and was capable of thinking for himself too, I'm not really sure she can be blamed for manslaughter, women like that you just stay away from and don't communicate with at all, he could have gone to the police if it was that big of a problem.

And yes LOL penguin it's like gun control advocates saying they think someone should be shot

Protip: Get off your high horse. (also maybe try having an original thought instead of just a cliche)

Suicide sucks, and suicidal people should get help, but I am not disgusted by this just because of the suicide. In fact I am for euthanasia in a lot of circumstances, especially when terminally ill people no longer have any quality of life and choose to do so of sound mind. I am disgusted by the fact that she not only influenced him to do it as a close friend of his, but clearly did so with the intent to use his death as a way to gain attention, social status, sympathy, and donations for her organizations.

The circumstances surrounding her use of social media, and her behavior before the fact clearly indicate she knew there was a good chance he would go thru with it, and she intended to use his death for her personal gratification. He might have done it anyway without her help, but her actions indicate to me she was toying with him for some time trying to push him over the edge, and making plans for the resulting actions while she posed as his friend (as opposed to overt bullying). Also as a young man, of course a plastic looking pretty girl like herself will have undue influence on his sense of self worth. He clearly was not old enough to have had the experiences to teach him to stay away from manipulative sociopathic barbie dolls.

Additionally, think for a minute if the genders were reversed... the nation would be crying and invoking cyberbullying legislation and condemning the man for acting in such a way, but when a women does it there are plenty of empty headed people ready to make excuses for her regardless of the evidence that she had clear intent to influence him to end his life for her own personal gain. Why is a man's life worth less than a woman's?

I am absolutely disgusted by this. This woman believes that men are nothing but disposable tools meant to end their lives in order to provide her with sympathy and attention from her peers. Michelle Carter should kill herself.

"Days prior to Roy’s suicide, Carter was allegedly telling her friends “it’s her fault that Conrad is dead, even though he was still alive and speaking and texting with her regularly,” police said.

South Coast Today reported that on July 11, 2014, Carter texted a friend saying she couldn’t locate Roy and was “a mess,” then an hour later texted Roy and allegedly said, “Let me know when you’re gonna do it.” "